hot enough for ya?

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

Post Reply
User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20512
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious » Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:29 am

You do realize that these are the same people that gave Bob Dylan the prize for literature right?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6586
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Sangoma » Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:21 am

Gene, in regards to how scientific the Socialist USSR was I think you know the answer. Lysenko prevailed over Michelin, and in the 60-s Khrushchev ordered changes in the agriculture that proved to be unreasonable and in some instances catastrophic. After visiting USA he decided that planting corn in Russia was the way to go, and suck-ups all over Siberia obliged. You can easily guess the harvest of corn in attitudes where summer lasts two months. Russia was always famous for its production of grains, but in the 1960-s USSR started buying whet in Canada. Someone said that instead of using national gold reserves to buy wheat Soviet government should have given a fraction of that gold to its own peasants, and the country would drown in grains of all kind. Science or not the decisive force was always political.
Image

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5108
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene » Sat Dec 01, 2018 4:51 pm

nafod wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:19 pm
There’s really no big “aha” piece to warrant a physics or chemistry prize, like discovering gravity waves or a new cool molecule. It’s more grinding away at the problem. But they’ve given a peace prize (Gore 2007) and now an economics prize. The signal is there.
There is no review of the science itself by the Nobel Prize committee. You know, that thing which is so compelling that only Bible Thumpers and Trogs can't see it? The only signal I see is red meat for the faithful.

I'm going to stick to this for a good reason - the usual nostrums imposed for remediation of the temperature rise requires heavy modification of how we live our lives. I've heard everything from Carbon Taxes to meat taxes to giving welfare to developing nations. All of this is going to impose a burden onto our lives. I want to see the reason itself, not be accept the science on faith.

Strong remedies require strong causes. Where is the science?
nafod wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:19 pm
The AMS is all over it, though.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/a ... d-fellows/
I took a little time to review those awards.

"THE SVERDRUP GOLD MEDAL AWARD
Shang-Ping Xie
For fundamental contributions to understanding the coupled ocean-atmosphere feedback processes involved in climate variability and climate change"

From 2012.....

Xie said in a statement , “I hope to develop new science filling the gap between global-mean temperature rise and regional rainfall change, say in California. Our recent work shows that atmospheric convection change is sensitive to the spatial unevenness in ocean warming

“To the extent that tropical convection drives important changes in climate around the globe, this result puts the ocean and its interaction with the atmosphere on the center stage of regional climate change research. Dynamics of regional climate change is a new line of research. Like any new developing science, there is a lot we need to figure out.”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... story.html


Useful and interesting but hardly compelling. Once again, where is the science, which will lead to the engineering? Where is the system of closed form equations upon which the models are built, which will allow the rest of us to debate the least intrusive and effective remediation methods?

You say that the AMES is all over it. How so?


I want the Nobel prize so that I can examine the science itself. So that the science itself is presented in its proper form, as closed equations or in the form of computer algorithms.
This space for let

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5108
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene » Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:06 pm

Sangoma wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:21 am
Gene, in regards to how scientific the Socialist USSR was I think you know the answer. Lysenko prevailed over Michelin, and in the 60-s Khrushchev ordered changes in the agriculture that proved to be unreasonable and in some instances catastrophic. After visiting USA he decided that planting corn in Russia was the way to go, and suck-ups all over Siberia obliged. You can easily guess the harvest of corn in attitudes where summer lasts two months. Russia was always famous for its production of grains, but in the 1960-s USSR started buying whet in Canada. Someone said that instead of using national gold reserves to buy wheat Soviet government should have given a fraction of that gold to its own peasants, and the country would drown in grains of all kind. Science or not the decisive force was always political.
I read about that faker, that phony. He was a friend of JV Stalin. He was a criminal against scientific inquiry, a sad counterpoint to the Vavilov Institute researchers who guarded root vegetables while starving to death during the Nazi blockade. https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/05/12/t ... eeds_35135

Lysenko had Vavilov arrested, he later died in the camps of hunger. Today we have the term "Vavilov Center", which describes the point of origin of races. Lynsenko lives only as a warning of how power can pervert science.

Khrushchev's agricultural campaign was well intentioned, the party wanted abundant corn so that soviet citizens had abundant meat and milk. They were working against a fundamental barrier - central planning.

The idea of Central Planning itself is suspect. Frederick von Hayek won the 1974 Nobel prize for his work on centralized planning, where he described the limits of knowledge that plague central planners.

Here is his acceptance lecture, which ought to be forced reading for some of the people posting in this thread. Especially its creator, who imagines that he can manage the destiny of a nation from his comfy office seat. Hint - The Soviets under Gosplan tried it, DMW. They failed.
We cannot be grateful enough to such modern philosophers of science as Sir Karl Popper for giving us a test by which we can distinguish between what we may accept as scientific and what not – a test which I am sure some doctrines now widely accepted as scientific would not pass.
If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants. There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, “dizzy with success”, to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will. The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/econo ... k/lecture/
This space for let

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11412
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by nafod » Sun Dec 02, 2018 5:18 pm

Gene, to borrow from asteroid protection...good article

https://amp.businessinsider.com/asteroi ... rt-2018-11
Roughly 72% of all NEOs that are 460 feet (140 meters) or larger have not been found, according to a report published by the White House's National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in December 2016. This amounts to about 25,000 nearby asteroids and roughly 2,300 potentially hazardous ones.
Are you arguing, through your reference to the USSR and the Nobel prize winner, that we should not “centrally plan” a defense against asteroids?

I am sure you are not, but it comes across that way a bit.

Climate change has a much higher probability, bordering on certainty now, of nutpunchng humanity. The problem in addressing it is in the fact that we are causing it. The government “cultivate the garden” with things like funding tech for alternatives and actually pricing the cost through carbon taxes, without full-on central planning. Etc.
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20512
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious » Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:33 pm

So give Solyndra more money? We don’t have a great record of picking winners in the green jobs sector, unless you factor crony capitalism as a win.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11412
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by nafod » Sun Dec 02, 2018 9:02 pm

Turdacious wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:33 pm
So give Solyndra more money?
Image

Here’s some good analysis for you.

http://news.mit.edu/2018/explaining-dro ... -cost-1120
Explaining the plummeting cost of solar power
Researchers uncover the factors that have caused photovoltaic module costs to drop by 99 percent...

For example, they found that government policy to help grow markets around the world played a critical role in reducing this technology’s costs. At the device level, the dominant factor was an increase in “conversion efficiency,” or the amount of power generated from a given amount of sunlight...

In terms of government policy, Trancik says, policies that stimulated market growth accounted for about 60 percent of the overall cost decline, so “that played an important part in reducing costs.” Policies stimulating market growth globally included measures such as renewable portfolio standards, feed-in tariffs, and a variety of subsidies. Government-funded research and development in various nations accounted for roughly 30 percent — although public R&D played a larger part in the earlier years, she says.
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20512
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious » Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:59 am

nafod wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 9:02 pm
Turdacious wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:33 pm
So give Solyndra more money?
Image

Here’s some good analysis for you.

http://news.mit.edu/2018/explaining-dro ... -cost-1120
Explaining the plummeting cost of solar power
Researchers uncover the factors that have caused photovoltaic module costs to drop by 99 percent...

For example, they found that government policy to help grow markets around the world played a critical role in reducing this technology’s costs. At the device level, the dominant factor was an increase in “conversion efficiency,” or the amount of power generated from a given amount of sunlight...

In terms of government policy, Trancik says, policies that stimulated market growth accounted for about 60 percent of the overall cost decline, so “that played an important part in reducing costs.” Policies stimulating market growth globally included measures such as renewable portfolio standards, feed-in tariffs, and a variety of subsidies. Government-funded research and development in various nations accounted for roughly 30 percent — although public R&D played a larger part in the earlier years, she says.
You mean a 'good analysis' that was sponsored by the major payer (Department of Energy) for this type of research? Maybe I should look at research on the addictiveness of tobacco (sponsored by Phillip Morris), or a study on the impact of child rape (sponsored by the Penn State Boosters Club).

Government sponsored research is not all equal-- some of it is fantastic, some of it is shit (climate studies from liberal arts PhDs et al. ), some of it is crony capitalism. Also this idea that the rules haven't changed significantly in the last 30 years is ridiculous. Venture capital is the leader now, not the follower.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20512
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious » Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:12 pm

"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20512
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious » Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:35 am

And France just found out that carbon taxes are unpopular.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6586
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Sangoma » Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:07 am

It can take some work, but eventually it should be possible to convince cows to hold their farts.
Image

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11412
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by nafod » Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:53 am

Sangoma wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:07 am
It can take some work, but eventually it should be possible to convince cows to hold their farts.
Heh
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11412
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by nafod » Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:59 am

Turdacious wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:35 am
And France just found out that carbon taxes are unpopular.
Tragedy of the commons


https://www.theonion.com/report-98-perc ... 1819565837
Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others

WASHINGTON, DC–A study released Monday by the American Public Transportation Association reveals that 98 percent of Americans support the use of mass transit by others.

"With traffic congestion, pollution, and oil shortages all getting worse, now is the time to shift to affordable, efficient public transportation," APTA director Howard Collier said. "Fortunately, as this report shows, Americans have finally recognized the need for everyone else to do exactly that."

Of the study's 5,200 participants, 44 percent cited faster commutes as the primary reason to expand public transportation, followed closely by shorter lines at the gas station. Environmental and energy concerns ranked a distant third and fourth, respectively.
Don’t believe everything you think.

Gene
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5108
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Inner Pindostan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Gene » Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:57 am

Turdacious wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:35 am
And France just found out that carbon taxes are unpopular.
Yeah, I guess it's hot enough in Paris, isn't it?

Image

Image


They wanted more than fuel tax cuts. They also wanted a tax on "wealth", minimum wage increase and for Macron to go. This ain't the Tea Party. More like more stato-masochism from the French.
This space for let

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11412
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by nafod » Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:04 pm

The yellow vests are interesting for a whole new reason. Rather than some typical party or organization, they are essentially an internet-facilitated flash mob. Basically leaderless, yet powerful.
Don’t believe everything you think.

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking » Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:38 pm

greenland ice sheet is melting at a faster rate that in hundreds of years. move to higher ground. prepare to be viewed with contempt by your kids, who will reap what you have sown.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... ate-change
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20512
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious » Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:27 pm

dead man walking wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:38 pm
greenland ice sheet is melting at a faster rate that in hundreds of years. move to higher ground. prepare to be viewed with contempt by your kids, who will reap what you have sown.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... ate-change
Welcome back lieman!
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11412
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by nafod » Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:00 pm

dead man walking wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:38 pm
greenland ice sheet is melting at a faster rate that in hundreds of years. move to higher ground. prepare to be viewed with contempt by your kids, who will reap what you have sown.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... ate-change
Going to need more FlexSeal

Image
Don’t believe everything you think.

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking » Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:26 pm

isn't that what people call a "pro tip?"
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20512
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Turdacious » Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:41 pm

Nineteen nations “believe” in climate change. How are they backing up their statement of faith?

China was praised for signing on to the Paris Climate Agreement and in Argentina reaffirmed its commitment to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, however, China increased those emissions by 1.7 percent.

India, the fourth largest source for CO2, saw their emissions grow by 4.6 percent in 2017. Luckily for them, they too were praised for signing that “nonbinding communiqué.”

Overall, the European Union raised their CO2 output by 1.5 percent.

France, home of the Paris Agreement, is leading the diplomatic effort to save the planet. They increased their greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 percent.

Pollution in France will likely rise further this year from the burning cars alone. French President Emmanuel Macron announced a sharp increase in gas and diesel taxes last month. This sparked the largest riots seen in Paris in nearly 50 years as yellow-vested citizens blockaded roadways, burned vehicles and damaged artwork and infrastructure.

If the nations paying lip service to climate change aren’t meeting their goals, imagine how poorly the oil-drilling, coal-mining Americans must be doing. President Donald Trump was pilloried for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and for being only G20 leader who refused to sign the climate change statement in Argentina.

From 2016 to 2017, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2.7 percent. Emissions from large power plants declined 4.5 percent since 2016, and nearly 20 percent since 2011. All without signing a piece of paper in Paris or Buenos Aires.

While other leaders fly fleets of jets around the world to clink non-GMO champagne flutes, America is quietly getting the job done. With a booming economy and surging energy production, we’re drastically cutting CO2 emissions through technological innovation rather than government mandates and international pressure.

America might not “believe” in environmental apocalypse, but it cares a great deal about clean air and a healthy environment. Looking at the evidence, we care far more than the rest of the world does, despite their grand summits and nonbinding communiqués.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 206756002/

Thanks Donald and Cocaine Mitch!
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6586
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Sangoma » Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:04 am

dead man walking wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:38 pm
greenland ice sheet is melting at a faster rate that in hundreds of years. move to higher ground. prepare to be viewed with contempt by your kids, who will reap what you have sown.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... ate-change
You are such a drama queen.
Image

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6586
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by Sangoma » Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:12 am

Climate change data is wildly overestimated
A study last year by Thorsten Mauritsen and Robert Pincus in the journal Nature Climate Change and another one this year by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, produced median estimates suggesting that a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures by only about half of what Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models predict.
Recently, two Heritage Foundation scholars and Canadian economist Ross McKitrick re-estimated the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions using earlier empirical estimates from Lewis and Curry, instead of relying on simulated estimates of the sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. In one model, the social cost of carbon fell 40-50% and in another the costs dropped a staggering 80%.
Adding all this up suggests that climate change probably won’t be anywhere near as disastrous as many people imagine. This has profound policy implications – it means that the drastic and expensive tax and regulatory actions taken by governments in the name of saving the climate are increasingly difficult to justify.
Image

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking » Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:22 pm

nafod--flex seal might not be enough. consider an investment in pumps

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2832/more ... wZ.twitter
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by dead man walking » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:30 pm

Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11412
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: hot enough for ya?

Post by nafod » Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:29 pm

Sangoma wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:12 am
Climate change data is wildly overestimated
A study last year by Thorsten Mauritsen and Robert Pincus in the journal Nature Climate Change and another one this year by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, produced median estimates suggesting that a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures by only about half of what Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models predict.
Recently, two Heritage Foundation scholars and Canadian economist Ross McKitrick re-estimated the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions using earlier empirical estimates from Lewis and Curry, instead of relying on simulated estimates of the sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. In one model, the social cost of carbon fell 40-50% and in another the costs dropped a staggering 80%.
Adding all this up suggests that climate change probably won’t be anywhere near as disastrous as many people imagine. This has profound policy implications – it means that the drastic and expensive tax and regulatory actions taken by governments in the name of saving the climate are increasingly difficult to justify.
I read the study by the first authors above, and it looks at committed forcing, and states that even if we zeroed out all carbon emissions today, we are still likely looking at busting the IPCC goal. So this is temperature rise already “in the bank”, so to speak.

One of the mechanism that would lower the temp increase if all carbon emissions were stopped right now is ocean uptake of the carbon. They don’t talk about the adverse effect of resulting actions acidification of the ocean, though, and the disruption of the food chain.

I hope the second authors are correct in their lowered estimates.
Don’t believe everything you think.

Post Reply